Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Urn: Crlr / 1415U / 2026Prem Prakash vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:21126) on 4 May, 2026
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2026:RJ-JD:21126]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 652/2026
Prem Prakash S/o Shri Budharam, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Ishwarwalo Ki Dhani, Cherai, Tehsil Osiyan, District Jodhpur,raj,
Through His Power Of Attorney Holder Mohan Lal S/o Shri
Budharam, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Ishwarwalo Ki Dhani,
Cherai, Tehsil Osiyan, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Divakar Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shri Ram Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
04/05/2026
1. By way of filing of the instant Criminal Revision Petition,
challenge has been made to Order dated 13.02.2026 passed by
Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases), No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan in
Criminal Misc. Application No.110/2026 (NCV No.31/2026)
whereby application under Section 503, BNSS as filed by the
petitioner for Supurdgi of vehicle in question, stood rejected.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is the registered
owner of the vehicle in question which has been seized by the
Police. He submits that the learned Trial Court while relying upon
the Apex Court judgment in Bishwajit Dey Vs. State of Assam;
AIR 2025 SC 549, erroneously observed that the petitioner being
the registered owner of the vehicle in question from which the
contraband was recovered, is not entitled for release of the same.
(Uploaded on 07/05/2026 at 04:12:27 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/05/2026 at 09:46:44 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:21126] (2 of 5) [CRLR-652/2026]
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the said vehicle (Bus)
was being used for commercial purpose. The driver Dinesh and
the cleaner Abdul Majid were employees appointed by the
petitioner for user of the said vehicle for commercial purposes
only.
4. It is further submitted that the petitioner who is the
registered owner of the vehicle has no criminal antecedents and
also has not been named in the FIR.
5. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the
petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle in question,
being falling under Second Scenario as categorized by Hon’ble the
Apex Court in Bishwajit Dey (supra), is not entitled to get the
vehicle released in his favour.
6. Heard the Counsels. Perused the record.
7. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat;
(2002) 10 SCC 283, Hon’ble the Apex Court held that valuable
vehicles and articles must not be permitted to be languished in
police custody for a long period exposed to elements, and directed
that interim release of such vehicles/articles should be ordered
subject to appropriate bond/guarantee for the same.
8. The aforesaid view was reiterated by Hon’ble the Apex Court
in Sainaba Vs. State of Kerala & Ors.; (2024) 13 SCC 382
whereby it was held that wasting assets particularly vehicles, must
be preserved by entrusting custody to the rightful owner.
9. So far as the judgment in Bishwajit Dey (supra) is
concerned, therein Hon’ble the Apex Court held as under:
(Uploaded on 07/05/2026 at 04:12:27 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/05/2026 at 09:46:44 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:21126] (3 of 5) [CRLR-652/2026]“22. This Court is further of the opinion that there is no
specific bar/restriction under the provisions of the NDPS
Act for return of any seized vehicle used for
transporting narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in
the interim pending disposal of the criminal case.
23. In the absence of any specific bar under the NDPS
Act and in view of Section 51 of NDPS Act, the Court
can invoke the general power under Sections 451 and
457 of the Cr.P.C. for return of the seized vehicle
pending final decision of the criminal case.
Consequently, the trial Court has the discretion to
release the vehicle in the interim. However, this
power would have to be exercised in accordance
with law in the facts and circumstances of each
case.”
The Court further held as under :
“28. Undoubtedly, the Vehicle is a critical piece of
material evidence that may be required for inspection to
substantiate the prosecution’s case, yet the said
requirement can be met by stipulating conditions while
releasing the Vehicle in interim on superdari like
videography and still photographs to be authenticated
by the Investigating Officer, owner of the Vehicle and
accused by signing the said inventory as well as
restriction on sale/transfer of the Vehicle.”
10. Coming to the ratio as relied upon by the learned Trial Court,
the judgment itself lays down that the said discussion should not
be taken as laying down a rigid formula as it will be open to the
Trial Courts to take a different view, if the facts so warrant.
11. Most importantly, in Bishwajit Dey (supra) in concluding
paras, the Hon’ble Apex Court opined as under :
(Uploaded on 07/05/2026 at 04:12:27 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/05/2026 at 09:46:44 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:21126] (4 of 5) [CRLR-652/2026]“34. This Court is also of the view that if the Vehicle in
the present case is allowed to be kept in the custody of
police till the trial is over, it will serve no purpose. This
Court takes judicial notice that vehicles in police custody
are stored in the open. Consequently, if the Vehicle is
not released during the trial, it will be wasted and
suffering the vagaries of the weather, its value will only
reduce.
35. On the contrary, if the Vehicle in question is
released, it would be beneficial to the owner (who would
be able to earn his livelihood), to the bank/financier
(who would be repaid the loan disbursed by it) and to
the society at large (as an additional vehicle would be
available for transportation of goods).”
12. Taking into consideration the above clarification as made by
the Hon’ble Apex Court and further the ratio as laid down in
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), this Court is of the opinion
that keeping the vehicle in police custody would definitely lead to
its deterioration. Further, keeping into consideration the fact that
the trial in question would take a considerable time to complete,
keeping the vehicle in question in police custody would serve no
purpose.
13. The revision petition is hence, allowed. Order dated
13.02.2026 is set aside.
14. The vehicle in question is directed to be released in favour of
the petitioner on terms and conditions to be determined by the
Special Court including interim custody till conclusion of the trial
provided he furnishes a Supurdaginama of Rs.50,000/- and surety
of like amount to the satisfaction of the Court below.
(Uploaded on 07/05/2026 at 04:12:27 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/05/2026 at 09:46:44 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:21126] (5 of 5) [CRLR-652/2026]
15. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
23-raoof khan/-
(Uploaded on 07/05/2026 at 04:12:27 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/05/2026 at 09:46:44 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link
